1955 Topps Jackie Robinson GAI 10

[CharleyBrown]

What are your thoughts on this one:

http://milehighcardco.com/LotDetail....GAI-10-PERFECT

Bottom right corner (near where it says Jackie) looks off to me. Makes me wonder why this card was never crossed over to PSA or SGC - it would have sold for far more than it will imo.

[4reals]

Shaun,

The description says that is was "housed" in a psa holder prior to the gai holder. No collector would ever transfer a card this nice out of a psa holder if it rec'd a 10 - or even a 9 for that matter. They presumably crossed it over to GAI knowing they would get a cushy grade and possibly make more off the sale. It is still a little curious that they even offered that bit of info in the description when it isn't needed. Seems to me that kind of info would hurt the end price rather than help it.

[HRBAKER]

Pretty card, and prose befitting a 10 cent novel.

Do you think they have a few pops and sit around and see who can come up with the most absurdly nauseating auction descriptions?

[nolemmings]

I completely agree with Joe. No way it's a crossover 10 or even 9--why risk damage to the card for it to get that slight of a (or no) bump? When was a GAI 10 ever worth more than a PSA 9? Certainly it was never worth more than a PSA 10.

I don't get bogged down in the graded card game, but this language makes me suspicious-- was it once holdered in a PSA "A" slab? Why does the description say "it should be noted that" it was once housed in a PSA holder. Why should it be noted? Why not say what the PSA holder read--better yet, supply the cert#? To me it sounds like seller is trying to imply that PSA gave its blessing, maybe fully so as a 10, yet they won't come out and say so and there remains the possibility that PSA once thought it was altered and only worthy of an "A" grade.

[the 'stache]

Nobody in their right minds would go from a PSA slab to a GAI slab.

Red flags, proceed with caution.

[4reals]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I don't get bogged down in the graded card game, but this language makes me suspicious-- was it once holdered in a PSA "A" slab? Why does the description say "it should be noted that" it was once housed in a PSA holder. Why should it be noted? Why not say what the PSA holder read--better yet, supply the cert#? To me it sounds like seller is trying to imply that PSA gave its blessing, maybe fully so as a 10, yet they won't come out and say so and there remains the possibility that PSA once thought it was altered and only worthy of an "A" grade.

EXACTLY - makes me think it got an "authentic" grade with PSA and it was submitted to GAI just to see if it would get graded without an altered or trimmed notification. If I were to seriously pursue this card I would request the old psa cert number or take my search elsewhere.

Didn't they know by adding that little bit of info it would raise red flags? What were they thinking?

[pclpads]

Agree with all comments. Whoever buys this and expects to flip for profit or crack and send to Newport is in for a rude awakening. The description makes me gag.

[97manoftroy]

So.....you go to the trouble of saying "it should be noted that the prior to its existence in the GAI holder the card was housed in a PSA holder" but you don't say what grade the card was while in that holder? Uh Whut'?

The card is a stunner.....but not worth the potential headache

[the 'stache]

Here's the card "freed" from it's plastic prison:



Using Photoshop, I rotated the card 90 degrees CW, and used the rectangular marquee tool to copy the card, laying the selection just along the edges of the card, and pasting it into a new image with a black background. At 100 pixels per inch, I changed the width to 3.75 inches. An untrimmed card would have a height of 2.625 inches ('55 Topps dimensions are 3 3/4" x 2 5/8"). This card measured a height of 2.58".

I can't speak for how cleanly the cards from the '58 Topps set were cut, but if you look at the image, it's pretty clear that they are highly uneven. The height is not what it should be. Again, has it been trimmed? Or is this within the norm based on cutting techniques in 1955?